I am an electrician by trade and I have never designed anything other than motor controls.
Thank you for the straightforward answer. Aside from the debate at hand, you might be interested in the Apollo CM Earth-landing system, which was built using relay logic and not solid-state components. At the time it was deemed more reliable. I just mention this because it would be a portion of the Apollo design that would fall within your area of professional expertise and might be of interest. I would expect you would not only be able to understand the design thoroughly but also detect any errors in it.
As I said, I'm an engineer. Specifically, I'm an aerospace engineer. I've never worked for NASA except distantly indirectly. I've worked entirely in the private sector. I worked on the Hughes 601HP satellite chassis and the Boeing 701 satellite chassis. I worked briefly on the Boeing Delta III launch vehicle, the (then) Orbital Sciences Antares launch vehicle -- the version before the one that used those piece-of-crap NK-33 engines, but not the version that's flying now -- and finally on the Ares 1. I also worked very briefly on the space shuttle to diagnose and correct a flow instability in the flow liners upstream of the low-pressure fuel turbopump. The 601HP and 701 projections are interesting here because they operate in the geostationary belt and have design lifetimes of 15 years. My specialty is computational analysis of designs. I use computers the size of tennis courts to iteratively adapt designs for structural, thermal, radiological, and aerodynamic concerns.
Now which of us is more qualified to determine whether a spacecraft design is valid?
